I'm in partial agreement with you. I wish this had not been (IMO) neccesary.
It's an axiom that good cases make bad laws. However, I think in this instance the congress did a good job of limiting the scope, to essential a writ of habeus, such that it will do little harm.
Now the upcoming debate on the broader question - the bill the House wanted - will have much more import in the way you describe.
I saw the original House bill (HR 1332). It was riddled with all sorts of damaging precedent.